Re: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlingame Planning Commission

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Wed May 12 1999 - 08:46:48 PDT


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA155444496; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:54:57 -0700
Return-Path: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA215274494; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:54:54 -0700
Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id IAA06150 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis (318) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id rHZJa27691; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <47122340.246afc68@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:46:48 EDT
Subject: Re: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlingame Planning Commission
To: OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis
Cc: atomic1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, harris@synopsys.com-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, karinaoc@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis, TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis, lbauman@fostercity.org-DeleteThis, jrunge@netcom.com-DeleteThis, wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, msides@harding.com-DeleteThis, russell_ford@cygn.com-DeleteThis, dan_weller@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, tom.vavul@kla-tencor.com-DeleteThis, jleipner@co.santa-barbara.ca.us-DeleteThis, scott@inet-sciences.com-DeleteThis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 15

I have talked with the City Attorney and the City Planner and was surprised
to hear a congratulatory tone in their appraisals of the situation. The
opinion from the City side seems to be that windsurfing has not been
dismissed because the Planning Commission plans to modify the project in the
approval process even though they
didn't make a finding of significant impact. The City is expecting us to work
thorugh the approval process to come up with a modified development plan that
will reduce impacts. How big a reduction they have in mind is a wild card and
probably varies quite a bit from commissioner to commissioner.

There is apparantly an addition to the EIR summary which will obligate the
City to consider wind impacts when any future developments occur in the
Anza/bayfront area. The City considers this a great finding for windsurfing
but it seems that CEQA would require this in any event. The real problem is
that it will require an evaluation of wind but it will be based on the flawed
standard contained in the current EIR.

There was a new staff report and also a new report by the environmental
consultant which discussed/challenged the turbulence information put forward
by myself and Mark Tischler two weeks ago. I did not have time to read these
but I have copies coming from the City Planner. There are also copies at the
Burlingame library. These documents should be carefully considered read
before we make too strong of a response. I think a couple of commissioners
may been sympathetic but voted
based upon a recommendation to deal with windsurfing through the approval
phase instead of the CEQA/EIR phase.

Peter



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:27 PST